<p>I used Hitler, but did it from the perspective of a German citizen and said that he took Germany out of poverty.</p>
<p>Risky, but I think it might work.</p>
<p>@new account: great idea, i dindn’t think of it that way</p>
<p>i had the leaders topic and used
Fascism
1984
Stephen A. Douglas (bit of a reach, I said he claimed to be working for compromise and stability with the Kansas/Nebraska Act but really just wanted to the territory organized so he could make money off his investment in Chicago real estate if they built a railroad with a terminus in Chicage. aka acted in self-interest, trusted too much, decision should have been considered suspect and scrutinized more)
over all i feel i reached a little too much with my examples</p>
<p>Can someone tell me the prompt for the leader one again. I forgot…Something about judging leaders with different standards? Exact wording please…</p>
<p>Should leaders of a country (I think it said country) or group be judged by different standards?</p>
<p>it was something like that. Maybe, how should leaders be judged, should leaders be judged on different standards if they did good for the majority of the country even though their practices weren’t ethical.</p>
<p>Should leaders of a country or group be judged by different standards?
^
It specified neither their practices nor their ethics.</p>
<p>What do you guys think of the stance I took? Will it go over well with the readers?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most popular examples:
- Hitler
- Lincoln
- Hussein / Nixon (not too sure)</p>
<p>Hitler will be extremely common, but if you wrote well and you had lots of details, you will fare well.
Your perspective thing will be a bonus though.</p>
<p>@NewAccount</p>
<p>How did you answer the question: “Should leaders of a country or group be judged by different standards?”</p>
<p>I’ll tell you my opinion of your stance after you answer the yes/no question.</p>
<p>i used lenin and george washington… LOL</p>
<p>I said yes. Will elaborate more if be needed.</p>
<p>@hotinpursuit: I think I backed up my view well enough. I had a 2nd example as well - personal anecdote.</p>
<p>Yeah, I’d actually appreciate if you expounded on that. “Hitler helped the people of his country, ergo leaders should be held to a higher standard.” Seems a bit of a non sequitur to me.</p>
<p>And wasn’t there a modifier in the question, something about laws or guidelines?</p>
<p>I basically said that Hitler broke several laws and guidelines that had been set by the international community (namely the Versailles Treaty), but by doing so he ultimately ameliorated the lives of German citizens. From the perspective of a German, Hitler took Germany out of its poor economic conditions that were the repercussions of WWI and made the nation a force to be reckoned with yet again. The main idea was that Hitler was a demagogue who, although used the wrong means to do so (breaking the Versailles treaty, mobilizing troops, etc), bettered the lives of his people. I think that falls in line with the prompt, no?</p>
<p>Opinions?</p>
<p>Wouldn’t that be an argument for the “no” answer?</p>
<p>For the record, I disagree that “Hitler took Germany out of its poor economic conditions” and “bettered the lives of his people.” It’s called the myth of war prosperity.</p>
<p>I think it’s an argument for “yes”, because I said that leaders should be granted amnesty when making decisions that better their communities.</p>
<p>In that case, you’re arguing that leaders should not be held to any standards, which is an argument for no.</p>
<p>No, I’m saying that leaders should be held to DIFFERENT standards. </p>
<p>I hope my essay was clear in expressing that.</p>
<p>I don’t see how you’re holding him to a different standard than regular people.</p>
<p>Because I’m saying that it was okay for him to bend the rules since it ultimately benefited his people.</p>
<p>Wasn’t that what the excerpt before the prompt was addressing?</p>
<p>Yeah. But I’m pretty sure that’s an argument for no.</p>
<p>Maybe someone else can moderate…?</p>